If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Twelve other teams lost money last season. They were: Phoenix ($20.6 million loss), Columbus ($18.7 million), New York Islanders ($16 million), Tampa Bay ($13.1 million), Florida ($12 million), Anaheim ($10.8 million), Buffalo (10.4 million), St. Louis ($10 million), Carolina ($9.4 million), Minnesota ($3.9 million), Nashville ($3.4 million) and San Jose ($900,000).
San Jose,Black Hawks, Red Wings and Rangers have openly claimed to have zero debt.
"Katz has said his team is losing money but has refused to show the books to the city council."-Forbes
We all know that team values are way up.Owners need to start showing us the numbers if your going to claim most the league is losing money. & If so, why were they giving out so big contracts?

The NHLPA has the right to audit. They're not exercising that right. Why... because the numbers are real.

The point about them giving out big contracts is bogus. They give out big contracts because that's where contracts have gone and that's what they have to pay to stay competitive.

The NHLPA has the right to audit. They're not exercising that right. Why... because the numbers are real.

The point about them giving out big contracts is bogus. They give out big contracts because that's where contracts have gone and that's what they have to pay to stay competitive.

what numbers are you referring to that are real?
An audit would cost a lot of money just to tell you that NHL teams are losing money but never would say how it came to be that way. Each team has a different business structure. You can get away with a lot in private held organizations.
The NHL has teams that aren’t doing so well, so we can lower salaries on the teams that aren’t doing so everyone will be comfortable with it. But why forget whether any management failure had a part in it? so we’re also going to lower the salaries on the teams that are making very large profits by the same amount? That sort of means we’re going to pay the players based on the worst performing, least efficient, most undercapitalized teams. That’s not the way markets are supposed to work. Prices are supposed to be set by the other end of the scale.
Remember it takes two to sign a contract.
The salary floor has been the problem not the salary cap amount. The owners got the exact deal they wanted before and now they're crying poor? They're not that stupid.

So the players 'just know' the owners are screwing them but they're too cheap to prove it? I'm supposed to take their word for it?

What figures are the owners fudging? We know attendance, ticket sales, and pricing. We know TV deals, etc. We have a very good idea of what the revenues look lie. Then, we know there's stuff they pay for like stadium upkeep, coaching staff, insurance, travel, etc.

If teams have to make it to a certain round in the Stanley Cup playoffs just to make money, then they shouldn't be in that market. It's that simple. Playoff success, in any sport, is far from guaranteed, regardless of how much talent a roster has. Teams cannot be expected to make a profit only if they perform at a certain level during postseason play. That's not a smart business strategy for anyone.
Players shouldn't have to be paid based on bad economics.
Why continue to lose money when there are several markets capable of hosting a successful NHL franchise?
Bettman and the NHL have to strongly consider relocation as the most effective way to improve the financial health of the NHL.

Something like 10-15 NHL teams are losing money. Canada doesn't have 10-15 cities that will sustain an NHL team. Contraction isn't an option for either side, there's no way Fehr will agree to a loss of hundreds of jobs.

Then you have to realize that having teams in markets that aren't crazy about hockey is a way to grow the brand and increase your TV market.

Something like 10-15 NHL teams are losing money. Canada doesn't have 10-15 cities that will sustain an NHL team. Contraction isn't an option for either side, there's no way Fehr will agree to a loss of hundreds of jobs.

Then you have to realize that having teams in markets that aren't crazy about hockey is a way to grow the brand and increase your TV market.

But if they're there for a good amount of time and still struggle with fans coming to the games and making money, when do you pull the plug?

Something like 10-15 NHL teams are losing money. Canada doesn't have 10-15 cities that will sustain an NHL team. Contraction isn't an option for either side, there's no way Fehr will agree to a loss of hundreds of jobs.

Then you have to realize that having teams in markets that aren't crazy about hockey is a way to grow the brand and increase your TV market.

which is why players are compromising to bring down their revenue shares to 50% including agreeing to owners demand on contract clauses.
Profitable owners have done nothing to help players keep existing contracts. Contracts signed just before the CBA expired. There trying to take advantage of the fact that a few teams are struggling.

which is why players are compromising to bring down their revenue shares to 50% including agreeing to owners demand on contract clauses.
Profitable owners have done nothing to help players keep existing contracts. Contracts signed just before the CBA expired. There trying to take advantage of the fact that a few teams are struggling.

Have they really compromised to that? From the offers I looked at, a few of them got down to '50%' extremely slowly. In other words, it didn't get near 50% until right before the CBA expired. Then in another one it was, "hey, we'll technically go to 50% if you throw us hundreds of millions of dollars on top of that split." Then Fehr comes out and says he never actually crunched the numbers. How do you guarantee someone a 50/50 split if you didn't crunch the numbers? How do you even make an offer without crunching the numbers? It was all a bunch of BS.

In another post you said that the NHLPA agreed to an immediate 50/50 split as long as player's existint contracts were honored. If that's the case, I'd like to see that offer.

I have seen Daly say:

Daly, in a statement, said: "The so called 50-50 deal, plus honoring current contracts proposed by the NHL Players’ Association earlier today is being misrepresented. It is not a 50-50 deal. It is, most likely a 56- to 57-percent deal in Year One and never gets to 50 percent during the proposed five-year term of the agreement. The proposal contemplates paying the Players approximately $650 million outside of the Players’ Share. In effect, the Union is proposing to change the accounting rules to be able to say ‘50-50,’ when in reality it is not. The Union told us that they had not yet ‘run the numbers.’ We did.”

Yes & I added Daly's statement about the 650 million paid outside of the players share back in October.
The argument hasn't been if the players should go to 50% gladly they've compromised but its when should it get there. That's where owners need to take part of the responsibility & stop locking out the league to rapidly reduce salaries as a way to fix their problems.

Something like 10-15 NHL teams are losing money. Canada doesn't have 10-15 cities that will sustain an NHL team. Contraction isn't an option for either side, there's no way Fehr will agree to a loss of hundreds of jobs.

Then you have to realize that having teams in markets that aren't crazy about hockey is a way to grow the brand and increase your TV market.

Com'on dude, these cities wouldn't be any more or less passionate if they had a minor league team yet they have NHL teams. In Connecticut, there are multiple teams all sporting a form of the old Whalers logo and the fans are passionate. Far less show support for NHL teams in many of these cities.

IMO, either eliminate some teams or get teams back in Hartford and Quebec. That makes the brand better. Fans from rival teams travel to these arenas. Nobody from these lame cities travel anywhere to support their teams. They barely support them in their own backyard.

I see Phoenix and Columbus being two teams with no future in the NHL.
Quebec has already started a new arena, I would expect them to take over Phoenix. Portland, Seattle, & Milwaukee all seem interested in an NHL team. They all have currently have stadiums to take over Columbus. This should have been already in the works if these teams were under such a financial crisis.